A baby-boomer bubble is forecast
Researchers predict a 'generational' dive in housing demand and say it could cause a major price downfall.
By Lew Sichelman
United Feature Syndicate

February 10, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The common perception among economists is that the current housing mess will be a relatively short-term affair that should see a return to normalcy within the next few years.

But, according to a new study by two USC researchers, problems of greater proportion lie just ahead. They call it the "generational housing bubble" and maintain that it will be fueled by the same baby boomers who have been bidding up prices since 1970 as they moved up the housing ladder.

Now, 78 million boomers are about to enter their twilight years when homeowners tend to become sellers rather than buyers. And as a result, the USC duo expects there will be "many more homes available for sale than there are buyers for them."

As the elderly become more numerous than the young, and shift into seller mode, the researchers postulate, the market imbalance could come quickly around 2011, causing housing prices to fall.

Only time will tell whether the projections by Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography in USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development, and Sungho Ryu, a doctoral candidate at the school and an associate planner with the Southern California Assn. of Governments, will come to pass.

After all, not all seniors retire or sell their homes and move to smaller places. Many prefer to age in place and live in their own homes. But eventually, as they die off, most of their homes will come on the market.

Myers and Ryu's foreboding prophecies bring to mind a 1989 study by a pair of Harvard economists, who predicted a 47% decline in housing prices during the 1990s because boomers would stop buying as they aged. Housing-industry economists lambasted that forecast as pure poppycock, and it eventually went up in smoke.

The USC researchers don't expect the generational correction to begin until 2011 or so. That's just about the time the most pessimistic prognosticators suggest the U.S. market will return to normal after five years or so on the rocks.

But it's also when the first wave of boomers reaches age 65, the traditional dividing point between seniors and working adults. And once that tipping point is reached, Myers and Ryu say, they will put more houses up for sale than the market will be able to absorb.

The researchers base much of their theory on the historic relationship between age and housing demand. For most of the American life span, the rates of buying and selling remain closely related because those who sell one house typically buy another. When people enter their late 50s and early 60s, as the leading wave of baby boomers has now done, buying and selling are in balance. When they reach their mid-60s, though, sellers start to outnumber buyers. And when they hit their 70s, sellers dominate.

People continue to buy homes after that age. But once they hit that benchmark, the number of sellers begins to exceed the number of buyers. Once they reach 75, they are three times as likely to be sellers than buyers. And at 80 and above, they are nine times more likely to be sellers.

Myers and Ryu project that the ratio of those age 65 and over to people ages 25 to 64 will surge 30% in the decade between 2010 to 2020 and 29% more in the 2020s, altering the balance between buyers to sellers for the foreseeable future.

They say the supply of houses on the market will be dominated by the actions of aging homeowners "who have little ability to postpone" their need to sell and retire from the housing market. They also caution that boomers facing age-related issues "could flood the market with excess supply."

If values decline, as the researchers suspect they will, boomers who remain owners will suffer because their equity will fall, shrinking what for many is their retirement savings.

If there is a positive aspect to Myers and Ryu's dire predictions, it's that the coming generational bubble will be a rolling one that won't affect all housing markets at the same time. And in some states, the sell-off will come later rather than sooner. Regional differences may be sharp.

Historically, seniors don't become net sellers in Arizona, Florida and Nevada until they reach 75. But the opposite is true in 13 other states -- Alaska, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Rhode Island. In those states, the crossover starts at age 55.

Maybe in 10, 15, even 20 years, but there's a while before the boomers are going to be selling-off. In the meantime, we can expect that the larger than usual numbers of recent retirees will be purchasing condos, etc, in the sun belt while the going is good.

The article notes that the leading edge of this event is 2011. Not far off. One has to also factor in the effect of the Baby Boomer retirement wave affecting Social Security, the vote, taxes... anyone in their 20s and 30s are going to be slammed with a whole host of problems.

The article notes that the leading edge of this event is 2011. Not far off. One has to also factor in the effect of the Baby Boomer retirement wave affecting Social Security, the vote, taxes... anyone in their 20s and 30s are going to be slammed with a whole host of problems.

Yup. On the plus side, the enterprising individuals among us are about to get a lot of raises. But as much as I've made a big deal about the social security meltdown, everyone is just as happy to sweep it under the carpet until it becomes a glaring problem. At that point, you can be sure that a lot of politicians are going to be voted into office on the grounds that they intend to support SS reform. The reverse is also true, that some of the elderly will elect politicians to support their financial interest in SS, but I'm not certain this constituency will have the clout to keep things as they are: there are a lot of folks in that generation, and indeed in all generations, who are fiscal conservatives and will continue to vote on principle.

As for 2011, I don't think there will be a pronounced affect until 2025, when the folks born in 1950 turn 75.

Yup. On the plus side, the enterprising individuals among us are about to get a lot of raises. But as much as I've made a big deal about the social security meltdown, everyone is just as happy to sweep it under the carpet until it becomes a glaring problem. At that point, you can be sure that a lot of politicians are going to be voted into office on the grounds that they intend to support SS reform. The reverse is also true, that some of the elderly will elect politicians to support their financial interest in SS, but I'm not certain this constituency will have the clout to keep things as they are: there are a lot of folks in that generation, and indeed in all generations, who are fiscal conservatives and will continue to vote on principle.

As for 2011, I don't think there will be a pronounced affect until 2025, when the folks born in 1950 turn 75.

Perhaps things will be all sorted out by 2040 when strong AI will be common and cheap. As a matter of fact, we might be under the whip of a global intelligence by then. I, for one, welcome our new MacOverlords.

Perhaps things will be all sorted out by 2040 when strong AI will be common and cheap. As a matter of fact, we might be under the whip of a global intelligence by then. I, for one, welcome our new MacOverlords.

Nonsense. There are plenty of people to replace the Boomers. The matter is simply whether we want to let them in or not. Demography is destiny. Those who have the babies make the future and even the stupid selfish boomers cannot change that.

Nonsense. There are plenty of people to replace the Boomers. The matter is simply whether we want to let them in or not. Demography is destiny. Those who have the babies make the future and even the stupid selfish boomers cannot change that.

Not only is the U.S. population aging, the very old component is growing at an even faster rate. In 2000, there were approximately 72,000 centenarians in the U.S. By 2050, using mid-range Census Bureau estimates, that number will increase fourteen-fold, exceeding 834,000. To get a relative sense of size, it would take a city as large as Detroit to house all the people older than 100 at the mid-century point.

Concerns about aging are not confined within the borders of the United States. Worldwide, the current ratio between the young (under 20) and the old (over 65) is roughly 3:1. By 2050, that ratio will recalibrate to equilibrium at 1:1. At that point, older people will outnumber younger ones for the first time in recorded history.

Another:

Quote:

A perfect storm

The graying of America presents a number of questions such as the prospective impact of impending retirements on:

1. financial markets, as Boomers prepare to liquidate equity holdings and supplement retirement savings;
2. real estate markets, as Boomers prepare to trade down from large homesa flurry of sales may add momentum to the imploding housing market;
3. employment issues, as Boomers exit the workplace and the baby bust generation comes up 11 million people short of available openings;
4. consumer spending, as Boomers retire or are forced into second careers, part-time or lower paying positions;
5. healthcare system, as Boomers begin to experience the inevitable decline of physical vigor and the onset of chronic illnesses like high blood pressure and diabetes.

An uncertain outcome

Some pundits ponder these issues and see the makings of a perfect storm capable of capsizing the U.S. economy. Others see the opportunity to extend the consumer use-life by extending the Boomer work-life from an arbitrary retirement at age 65, to an open-ended employment contract that keeps people working, and earning, for as long as they are physically able. [See sidebar on Working Retirements below.

Society has never been asked to solve a socioeconomic equation with so many unknown variables before. There simply have never been so many old people, living so long and staying so healthy.

From a marketing perspective, one thing is certain. Older Boomers represent both a viable market and one too large to ignore.

In other words, there is no way around social security reform. If you want to live longer, expect to work longer, too. When SS want initiated, only 1% of the US population was older than 65. Why has it become expected?

I'm seldom wrong. Why don't you go search for my Greenspan recession thread and see how wrong I was there.

You have to realize that the word bust only applies to how the Boomers are screwed. For everyone else it is cheap stocks, cheap housing and ample opportunities. Even if the inflation train comes running through, everyone else gets to run on the treadmill while the boomers are the ones who have to get off and watch their purchasing power diminish.

In short, boomers lose, everyone else wins and boomers are not America.

Boomers are going to be broke. Boomers are going to be wondering who is going to pay their Social Security and take care of their debts they have run up. The fact that they won't be able to get $500k for their homes and instead have to accept $250k won't hurt their children. It will hurt them. When their children inflate away those debt and destroy the purchasing power of their 401k's and pensions, it won't hurt their children, it will hurt them.

A pretty strident comment there, T-man. I would tend to agree with the premise that boomers have hurt themselves the most: hell, this is the generation that been hurting itself since its birth. But it's going to be one hell of a bumpy ride though all of it, especially when cascaded with the growing, worldwide tensions between Islamic affairs and the West (yes, in general), the ever-present whimsies of the fiscal left (now it's universal health ... go chat with a Canadian on that), and what appears to be a complete fracture developing between evangelicals and the rest of the right. No, it's not the first time there have been problems in American society, but it's the first time in while where it seems that the whole system needs an overhaul to better suit the needs of a larger and more diversified constituency. Without a miracle, we can expect mediocre non-solutions in almost all areas.

Well I've softened up quite bit. I have a quote somewhere on here where I said the silver bullet solution to the boomer's problems is a literal silver bullet. See how much nicer this is in comparison to that?

Quote:

I would tend to agree with the premise that boomers have hurt themselves the most: hell, this is the generation that been hurting itself since its birth.

The real problem will be much worse than them getting older. In the past we have only had to deal with their generational selfishness and self-centeredness. Now we are going to be dealing with their denial related to aging and finally passing on from the planet. I say good riddance.

Quote:

But it's going to be one hell of a bumpy ride though all of it, especially when cascaded with the growing, worldwide tensions between Islamic affairs and the West (yes, in general), the ever-present whimsies of the fiscal left (now it's universal health ... go chat with a Canadian on that), and what appears to be a complete fracture developing between evangelicals and the rest of the right.

It could indeed be a bumpy ride and I believe that soon we will begin pondering generational accounting as a result. I think as the boomers retire they will see how the generation after them are going to call in the chips so to speak. The boomers will be able to vote but the reality is that they will no longer have the cunning or energy to address what will be happening to them. Their own games are going to be run against them by younger people with more energy.

I'm firmly of the opinion that inflation will return and that the generation after them will somehow decouple entitlements from it. This will solve the entitlement problem in part by cutting benefits without really cutting them. You let inflation run 6-7% while actually raising benefits 1-2% and the government will just lie about the numbers. (Hell they already do)

I believe we will end up endorsing a universal health care program but I believe the reasoning on this will be a bit perverse. It will be because as the boomers begin desiring all their life extending and quality of life procedures, we will be able to ration care and deny them these items. You will see hip, knee replacements and other procedures limited by the government due to preexisting conditions much like what is happening in Britain now.

I think America lucky in that our illegal immigrants don't happen to want to kill us unlike Europe. We don't have to worry about Mexicans being radicalized religiously. I think we will soon see an amnesty program in part because of the "retirement crisis."

Quote:

No, it's not the first time there have been problems in American society, but it's the first time in while where it seems that the whole system needs an overhaul to better suit the needs of a larger and more diversified constituency. Without a miracle, we can expect mediocre non-solutions in almost all areas.

I think the "miracle" will hopefully be some economic self-interest and a realization that we need to bring the troops home not just from Iraq but from Germany, from Korea, from Japan ,etc. The boomers have been spreading and believing their own lies for too long. You see anyone who even hints at these positions beginning to generate big money when a Perot, Paul, or anyone even hints at them. You put them to a young face and watch the tide turn.

It could indeed be a bumpy ride and I believe that soon we will begin pondering generational accounting as a result. I think as the boomers retire they will see how the generation after them are going to call in the chips so to speak. The boomers will be able to vote but the reality is that they will no longer have the cunning or energy to address what will be happening to them. Their own games are going to be run against them by younger people with more energy.

You make many reasoned points, but they are firmly at odds with reality, T.

Boomers are a much larger, and more powerful voting bloc than the younger generation. Anything short of murder in the streets or a tax revolt by the young will simply mean that the larger number of voters will continue to steal via political force from you and me.

I'm sorry to all the traditional Republicans here, but the answer to the low birth rate is immigration, specifically from countries where population growth is out of hand, and there are plenty.

I've not seen Republican against immigration at all. I have seen Republicans against giving illegal immigrants legal status whereby they now begin to cost us money instead of making us money via their exploitation.

I've had this wonderful sort of circular reasoning discussion with several people who knock off their silly talking points about the cost of a head of lettuce or doing jobs Americans won't do.

Them: You are lucky these folks are here otherwise think about who would pick your lettuce and how much it would cost. They are doing jobs Americans won't do!

Me: You are right but if that is the case why do they need documentation, a license, the ability to claim Social Security benefits, etc.

Them: Well it will help bring them out of the shadows and stop them from being exploited.

Me: Isn't the point of them being here to be exploited?!? If they aren't being exploited won't the cost of that head of lettuce go up? Won't the Social Security Fund go even more broke since they are now paying in and wanting to draw out? If we fix all this exploitation, wouldn't these become jobs Americans will do since their crime is an unwillingness to be exploited?

Them: (crickets chirping)

The only thing people are against is arguments whereby you claim you would be screwed if certain people weren't exploited and then scratch your head when they don't support measures whereby they can no longer be exploited since that would... screw them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I agree 100%. Cutting off the tide of immigrants will severely damage our ability to compete as a nation, and will lessen the supply of workers needed to care for our huge retired population.

Agreed and best of all, our immigrants legal or illegal don't care to show up and commit jihad while enforcing sharia law!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

You make many reasoned points, but they are firmly at odds with reality, T.

Boomers are a much larger, and more powerful voting bloc than the younger generation. Anything short of murder in the streets or a tax revolt by the young will simply mean that the larger number of voters will continue to steal via political force from you and me.

Well my amounts from the inability to get blood from a stone. One of the reasons I follow the family court stuff so much is because this is what is happening there. You see men who never get paid above board so it is trackable income. You see more bartering instead of trackable transactions. I do not think it accidental that in a time of profound technological change as this, you see more people than ever forgoing marriage, even forgoing bank accounts. The more the government squeezes, the more people will hide their actions or refuse to sanction them via government means. They will live with the wife for 50 years without the piece of paper. They become self-employed consultants who hide all the cash that runs through their businesses. Hell they might even buy a motorhome with television and internet via satellite and phone via cell service and just drop out of the property tax loop. I actually know a few men who have taken this route.

Also if you get a court to buy into generational accounting, then debt becomes taxation without representation and as such, could yield a very large win if shopped around to enough judges and courts. It would only take one win.

The means by which it is avoided or is overturned really isn't important. All that needs to be understood is that unless they want to criminalize the entire working population of the United States or bring back slavery, then they are screwed since nothing short of that can bring about the amount of funds necessary to "save" them.

I've not seen Republican against immigration at all. I have seen Republicans against giving illegal immigrants legal status whereby they now begin to cost us money instead of making us money via their exploitation.

I've had this wonderful sort of circular reasoning discussion with several people who knock off their silly talking points about the cost of a head of lettuce or doing jobs Americans won't do.

Them: You are lucky these folks are here otherwise think about who would pick your lettuce and how much it would cost. They are doing jobs Americans won't do!

Me: You are right but if that is the case why do they need documentation, a license, the ability to claim Social Security benefits, etc.

Them: Well it will help bring them out of the shadows and stop them from being exploited.

Me: Isn't the point of them being here to be exploited?!? If they aren't being exploited won't the cost of that head of lettuce go up? Won't the Social Security Fund go even more broke since they are now paying in and wanting to draw out? If we fix all this exploitation, wouldn't these become jobs Americans will do since their crime is an unwillingness to be exploited?

Them: (crickets chirping)

The only thing people are against is arguments whereby you claim you would be screwed if certain people weren't exploited and then scratch your head when they don't support measures whereby they can no longer be exploited since that would... screw them.

Agreed and best of all, our immigrants legal or illegal don't care to show up and commit jihad while enforcing sharia law!

Well my amounts from the inability to get blood from a stone. One of the reasons I follow the family court stuff so much is because this is what is happening there. You see men who never get paid above board so it is trackable income. You see more bartering instead of trackable transactions. I do not think it accidental that in a time of profound technological change as this, you see more people than ever forgoing marriage, even forgoing bank accounts. The more the government squeezes, the more people will hide their actions or refuse to sanction them via government means. They will live with the wife for 50 years without the piece of paper. They become self-employed consultants who hide all the cash that runs through their businesses. Hell they might even buy a motorhome with television and internet via satellite and phone via cell service and just drop out of the property tax loop. I actually know a few men who have taken this route.

Also if you get a court to buy into generational accounting, then debt becomes taxation without representation and as such, could yield a very large win if shopped around to enough judges and courts. It would only take one win.

The means by which it is avoided or is overturned really isn't important. All that needs to be understood is that unless they want to criminalize the entire working population of the United States or bring back slavery, then they are screwed since nothing short of that can bring about the amount of funds necessary to "save" them.

I'm sorry to all the traditional Republicans here, but the answer to the low birth rate is immigration, specifically from countries where population growth is out of hand, and there are plenty.

Do you realize the tax burden passed on to others when low wage earners live two families to a home with many children enrolled in the public schools.

Lets say you take a home in Fort Worth Texas in "little Mexico" and two families split the home. This home is valued less than $60,000 brings in property tax of roughly $1,000 yearly. The cost to each family is $500 of this $1,000 total.

Now what do these families get for their yearly $500 contribution? Let's say each family has just 2 children. It is known that it costs $7,000 per year per child to be educated in the public schools here. Multiply that by 2 children and you have a burden to the tax base of $14,000 a year per family or $28,000 per year (during the school age years) per this one household that pays in property tax of $1,000 per year.

Benefit of 28 - 1. This does not take into account other benefits like flooding ER rooms. I am not making this up either. I can show you the reality of this. Come to DFW and I can show you the ER rooms with over an hour wait. And you will see who is there because they have no other method of health care.

You tell me how this is supposed to be sustainable.

Our federal government is bankrupting this country with wars and overspending.
Our local governments in border states are going bankrupt from the immigration issue.

I have nothing against people south of the border I am just giving the financial facts of how this trend is not healthy for the social systems of education and health care.

Social services work when the members pay in at the proper premium. When a huge percentage of the population that uses social services pays in virtually nothing it will implode the social services financially.

Also, for developments on new tax-free zones springing up in the US, look into the developments on the Republic of Lakotah, a separatist indian nation that just split off from the US, inside the US. This will get really interesting.

Also, for developments on new tax-free zones springing up in the US, look into the developments on the Republic of Lakotah, a separatist indian nation that just split off from the US, inside the US. This will get really interesting.

I am part liberal and part free market capitalist and it really jerks my chains when I hear a far right or far left minded person make comments which are seemingly detatched from all reality.

For example I was watching CNBC the other day and this "financial guy" from some stupid fund was saying he did not think high gas prices affected the economy or would have any impact on peoples lives.

I thought to myself you little bastard... must be nice to live in la la land..

Then I hear my friend tonton who I figure leans to the left in a political sense (not a crime mind you) and I quite respect tonton btw. say the bit to which I responded to earlier in this thread above about immigration solving the population problem and it is as if tonton is detatched from all reality of what growing immigration is doing to the local municipal governments in border states in the US. (see my post above)

It is as if those on the far right who have endless bank accounts speak from a vantage point that
BAHHHHH high gas prices will not hurt the economy or the consumer... and those on the far left having an endless giving heart speak from a vantage point of BAHHHH the US can afford to give out social services to millions who pay virtually nothing into the system.

To both these people on the far right and far left I respectfully say.. You are skimming over reality or you do not live in reality.

and a spritz of perfume will not fix the growing problem a.k.a. ( economic stimulus package )

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Fellows, what you don't understand WRT immigration and the economy is that it is an investment. The return comes later. We are, after all, children of immigrants (unless we're native American), and maybe our first generation ancestors didn't pay into the system, but we do. Maybe new Mexican immigrants aren't paying as much into the system now, but their children and grandchildren will, which is what will support the economy without relying on high birth rates. Aside from that, there are plenty of immigrants who pay into the system, and plenty of third, fourth, and sixth generation Americans who don't.

Now if you're saying that state and local governments bear too much of the financial burden of the investment, I'm right with you on that one, I being from California and you being from Texas. Immigration related expenses, including security costs and education costs, in addition to social programs, should largely be borne by the Federal government.

I don't think I'm as far detached from reality as you claim when you look at the whole picture.

Fellows, what you don't understand WRT immigration and the economy is that it is an investment. The return comes later. We are, after all, children of immigrants (unless we're native American), and maybe our first generation ancestors didn't pay into the system, but we do. ...

You moved to Hong Kong years ago. You may read the newspapers, have party affiliations, etc, but you're not getting the whole story. Neither am I, to tell you the truth. Even so, most honest Ameriacns with fingers on the pulse realize that the system is broken. There are many potential solutions, but there is one clear problem: the systems in place -- hospitals, jails, tax codes, etc. -- are not capable of bearing the current situation. So something needs to change. Most Democrats seem to be against any form of repair for the singular reason that they think they can get voters out of central american immigrants (illegal or not). That is indisputable. The rest of the varied political spectrum has different opinions on how to fix the problems, and most of them don't involve putting up walls or mass deportation. So before you make silly, sentimental claims that pull anecdotes from bygone eras where the systems of the day were not broken, consider that there is, indeed, a real problem.

You moved to Hong Kong years ago. You may read the newspapers, have party affiliations, etc, but you're not getting the whole story. Neither am I, to tell you the truth. Even so, most honest Ameriacns with fingers on the pulse realize that the system is broken. There are many potential solutions, but there is one clear problem: the systems in place -- hospitals, jails, tax codes, etc. -- are not capable of bearing the current situation. So something needs to change. Most Democrats seem to be against any form of repair for the singular reason that they think they can get voters out of central american immigrants (illegal or not). That is indisputable. The rest of the varied political spectrum has different opinions on how to fix the problems, and most of them don't involve putting up walls or mass deportation. So before you make silly, sentimental claims that pull anecdotes from bygone eras where the systems of the day were not broken, consider that there is, indeed, a real problem.

I agree that there's a real problem. where did you get the idea that I thought everything now is AOK?

In fact, I believe there are many things that would begin helping with the problem, but cutting services definitely isn't one of them, nor is spending billions policing the border, financing vigilantes or building more walls and fences.

I think some of the first places to look are job training and placement for legal immigrants, and seasonal worker program to provide a legal alternative to illegal immigration (and provide a break for the economy).

I haven't seen any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat approach the solution to the problem correctly.

And I strongly disagree with your assertion that "most Democrats seem to be against any form of repair..." It is simply incorrect, as well as the fact that your claim regarding their motivation for supposedly "not wanting change" is illogical. There are far more votes to be gotten by blabbering about fences and deportation than there are in doing "nothing" in a grab for the Latino vote, which any candidate knows, isn't any happier with the current system than the white folks.

After you read that then come back and say "most Democrats..." I don't see that either of those candidates are "against any form of repair".

Referencing the web pages run by the candidates and their aides is about the least informative thing you could have done. Don't turn this into partisan silliness. You really need to tap into the dialog that goes on in journals and editorials. Thanks to the internet, I'm sure you can find it this kind of stuff.

Referencing the web pages run by the candidates and their aides is about the least informative thing you could have done. Don't turn this into partisan silliness. You really need to tap into the dialog that goes on in journals and editorials. Thanks to the internet, I'm sure you can find it this kind of stuff.

Excuse me? Candidates' published positions, including bill introduction and voting records, are not "informative", but the media is? LMFAO!

Barack Obama:

Quote:

Barack Obama's Record

* Crack Down on Employers: Obama championed a proposal to create a system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S.
* Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks.
* Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together.

Tell me how those FACTS are not better than "journals and editorials". Please.

Once again that is not "doing nothing". Once again, I have proven that you are simply wrong, at least in this example of one particular Democrat (and a pretty important Democrat at at that). Barack Obama's record is fact. Not "editorial".

And are you not the one who made this partisan?

You said, "Democrats aren't doing anything!". I said, "Yes they are doing something, and here it is. But neither party is doing enough*." And I'm the one being partisan? Jeez, did you join the SDW bizarro reality world?

Fellows, what you don't understand WRT immigration and the economy is that it is an investment. The return comes later. We are, after all, children of immigrants (unless we're native American), and maybe our first generation ancestors didn't pay into the system, but we do. Maybe new Mexican immigrants aren't paying as much into the system now, but their children and grandchildren will, which is what will support the economy without relying on high birth rates. Aside from that, there are plenty of immigrants who pay into the system, and plenty of third, fourth, and sixth generation Americans who don't.

Now if you're saying that state and local governments bear too much of the financial burden of the investment, I'm right with you on that one, I being from California and you being from Texas. Immigration related expenses, including security costs and education costs, in addition to social programs, should largely be borne by the Federal government.

I don't think I'm as far detached from reality as you claim when you look at the whole picture.

Thank you for your reply. I hope you did not think I was trying to hammer you too hard because I do not mean to sound in any tone as if I am giving you a hard time about the subject of immigration.

With respect,

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Well I've softened up quite bit. I have a quote somewhere on here where I said the silver bullet solution to the boomer's problems is a literal silver bullet. See how much nicer this is in comparison to that?

The real problem will be much worse than them getting older. In the past we have only had to deal with their generational selfishness and self-centeredness. Now we are going to be dealing with their denial related to aging and finally passing on from the planet. I say good riddance.

It could indeed be a bumpy ride and I believe that soon we will begin pondering generational accounting as a result. I think as the boomers retire they will see how the generation after them are going to call in the chips so to speak. The boomers will be able to vote but the reality is that they will no longer have the cunning or energy to address what will be happening to them. Their own games are going to be run against them by younger people with more energy.

I'm firmly of the opinion that inflation will return and that the generation after them will somehow decouple entitlements from it. This will solve the entitlement problem in part by cutting benefits without really cutting them. You let inflation run 6-7% while actually raising benefits 1-2% and the government will just lie about the numbers. (Hell they already do)

I believe we will end up endorsing a universal health care program but I believe the reasoning on this will be a bit perverse. It will be because as the boomers begin desiring all their life extending and quality of life procedures, we will be able to ration care and deny them these items. You will see hip, knee replacements and other procedures limited by the government due to preexisting conditions much like what is happening in Britain now.

I think America lucky in that our illegal immigrants don't happen to want to kill us unlike Europe. We don't have to worry about Mexicans being radicalized religiously. I think we will soon see an amnesty program in part because of the "retirement crisis."

I think the "miracle" will hopefully be some economic self-interest and a realization that we need to bring the troops home not just from Iraq but from Germany, from Korea, from Japan ,etc. The boomers have been spreading and believing their own lies for too long. You see anyone who even hints at these positions beginning to generate big money when a Perot, Paul, or anyone even hints at them. You put them to a young face and watch the tide turn.

Well it looks like there are a few of us that can do this together... it will be nice to see all the baby pages

Amanda - Congrats I was due with Hannah yesterday 1/14 last year I just did a page in my gallery on my due date. Im so excited for you How far apart are your kids?
_________________http://www.ps2netdrivers.net/manual/hp.49g-/